Keystone XL Pipeline Extension Not the Real Issue

Over the last several months, the controversy over the Keystone XL pipeline extension has grown to such fevered pitch that several weeks ago, the Obama administration, fearing alienation of its own environmentalist base, punted a decision on its border crossing permit for another year of further “study” of the pipeline project. Proposed by pipeline company Transcanada, The Keystone XL extension consists of over 1,600 miles of 36″ pipe that would move oil from the oil sands projects in Alberta, Canada, through Saskatchewan, into Montana, then crosscountry, using portions of the existing Keystone pipeline, extending all the way to refineries on the Texas Gulf Coast. When completed, the pipeline system is expected to have capacity to transport up to 1.1 million barrels of oil per day, or about 6 percent of our total oil consumption per day in the US. Combine this with our existing 7.5 million barrels of domestic petroleum production, this would total over 44% of our total domestic consumption per day.

Many opponents to the Keystone extension cite safety, pipeline routes, environmental concerns, and general opposition to the burning of oil in the US for energy use. Many have declared the construction of this pipeline as some kind of tipping point, beyond which our environment will be lost forever. Some concerns are warranted, some are pure hyperbole; however, the vast majority of the concerns don’t address the real problem that we burn 20 million barrels of oil per day in the US. That inconvenient fact is not changing, at least in the foreseeable future. Whether we build this pipeline or not, that number is only going to go up, since the US has no long range energy policy, which means we’ll have to import even more oil. In my view, I would rather import a million more barrels of oil a day from Canada, who is friendly, rather than from the Middle East, who is not. That’s the choice. The only choice.

The Keystone extension is not the real issue here. It’s our own energy policy (or lack thereof) that is. For almost 50 years, our elected leaders have simply kicked the can down the road rather than developing real policy. The Obama administration’s decision to delay the cross border permit was transparently political, putting off the decision until after the 2012 election. This further “study” is simply a stall, adding another year to the already 3 year evaluation of the pipeline. I don’t believe it’s necessary, especially taking over a year; alternative routes for the pipeline, if that’s the concern, can be developed in a matter of weeks and months, allowing the project to proceed thereafter. In fact, undisputed route construction could be begun immediately. I simply don’t believe that more study of a highly studied project is warranted. This is pure politics, in my view. Additionally, political decisions like this have unintended consequences. If the US proves to be too hard to deal with, Canada will just take their oil west…put it on ships…and sell it to China, the same country who’s now competing for US coal.

The US desperately needs a comprehensive energy policy to reduce our overall burn of crude oil. Major pieces of that reduction includes conservation, efficiency, and alternative sources, including wind, solar, biofuels, and natural gas which has become more abundant in the US as a result of leapfrogging technology. To be sure, shale gas has its own issues, including the destruction of billions of gallons of fresh water lost through drilling and frac’ing, as well as damage to ground water aquifers.

None of these issues are easy to solve, and certainly won’t be solved by the participants in the clown show that goes on daily in our nation’s capital. I fear that we won’t solve our energy consumption problem until we’ve exhausted every other alternative, forcing the politicians to act. That being said, though, our energy security is one of the key issues here. Every barrel of oil we import from the Middle East, and other countries (like Venezuela) who hate us, threatens our security and economic stability. A pipeline that can move another million barrels into our borders helps assure that security and stability until we get leadership in Washington who will grapple with the real problems we face.

The inconvenient reality is that this pipeline needs to be built to help assure our own energy security until we take authority over our own future, establishing a responsible comprehensive policy that makes massive oil imports less of a priority.

7 Comments

Thank you for the entry. I just thought I would post a link from Real Climate that discusses specifically the impact of Keystone XL on climate. It’s worth noting that in the view of the author, he is most in agreement with the sentiment that the project would “light the fuse for the biggest carbon bomb on the planet”.

I would also like to add that it is hard to find a more authorative source than Real Climate. I would encourage you to read the link. Thanks again.

Thanks for the link. Interesting reading. The author does make some pretty large leaps in logic, basing his entire analysis on the “assumption” that proved reserves equal carbon in the air now, and that coal basins like the powder river basin could be mined much more than is ever envisioned or feasible. But I’m not going to quibble with a climate scientist on global warming, and I agree that burning hydrocarbons contribute to climate change. Ideally, we shouldn’t burn hydrocarbons, but there simply is no choice since our governments make no effort towards alternative means or cleaner standards. You have to de-link the carbon argument from the pipeline. Not building KXL won’t stop the development of Canadian oil sands. This is a security issue for us. I would rather have control over that source (as well as bringing jobs and economic development to the Gulf coast) rather than just selling that oil directly to foreign buyers from Canada. In the event of world de-stabilization of oil, we would then have supply IN THE US as opposed to trying to get it out of volatile regions such as the Persian Gulf.

Just to follow up on the discussion, I understand your argument for building the pipeline, but I would venture to guess that you do not have a very firm grasp of climate science and what it is saying about global warming. You’ve probably read my comments in the past mentioning that I have read in the neighborhood of 40-50 books worth of material on global warming in the form of following discussions among climate scientists, their interactions with the public, e.t.c.

There is a certain point when you read enough of the science, where you wake up, truly wake up…. I would bet (without knowing for sure) that 95% or more of Climate Scientists would be against the building of the pipeline. I think many of them DO understand the consequences of what that would mean from and economic standpoint, not to build it. Yet they still would be against building it.

Frankly, the situation with Global Warming IS a screaming emergency. We HAVE to take a stand somewhere, and I can thing of no better place to do it than over this issue with Keystone. It may seem unrealistic, but we HAVE to force policy changes on the Federal Government in the direction of massively reducing our carbon footprint in conjunction with massive Government spending on research and development into clean technologies. This Country has done great things before without anything near the threat that Global Warming poses…. Just think of the Apollo project, the Marshall Plan, e.t.c. When Kennedy first proposed putting a man on the moon, it probably seemed like a pipe dream, but we did it. THAT is what we need to do reducing our carbon footprint. And Government will usually not act unless be forced to do so.

I know you wouldn’t disagree with much of this, but the point is most people really do not understand the consequences of putting more carbon into the atmosphere. They think they do, but they don’t.

Doug, you are equating killing the Keystone XL pipeline with not developing Canadian oil sands. The US government has NO authority over the Canadians, so the practical result of us killing the pipeline is less energy security and the Canadians selling the oil to the Chinese and other countries directly. I vote for security. Global climate change is clearly a gigantic issue, but killing this pipeline does nothing to resolve the issue.

In case of disruptions? I think that’s a given. I’m all for something that will take control of some of our collective future regarding energy and put it back in our own hands.

I am continually disappointed that, since I was in elementary school back when dinosaurs roamed the earth (according to my kids), we have done NOTHING serious about alternative energy sources. I remember the rationing in the 70’s and the semi-serious talk that took place about alternatives to fossil fuels, until Carter left office and they could shut the conversation down again.

It’s a fine mess we’ve gotten ourselves into, Ollie. My fear is that it will take a catastrophic event to truly effect change in this area, however. Right now, there’s too much money to be made for a select few who are sitting in their ivory towers.

Water is the next commodity. Can’t WAIT to see the fight over that one.